Big Suits
|
41
Wardle, Peter C.
Wardle Daley
Bernstein Bieber LLP
(416) 351-2771
pwardle@wdbblaw.ca
Mr. Wardle has a hard-
won reputation for
successfully resolving
complex and important
cases affecting his cli-
ents' businesses, ca-
reers and reputations.
He is acclaimed for his
work in securities litiga-
tion, D&O liability and
professional negligence.
Williams, David B.
Harrison Pensa LLP
(519) 661-6782
dwilliams@harrisonpensa.
com
Mr. Williams is con-
sidered to be one of On-
tario's most respected
civil litigators. A special-
ist in civil litigation, His
practice is focused on
personal injury, medical
malpractice, plaintiff
class action and
complex commercial
litigation matters.
Wisner, Robert
McMillan LLP
(416) 865-7127
robert.wisner@mcmillan.ca
Mr. Wisner's practice
focuses on international
arbitration and cross-
border litigation. Many
of his clients are
involved in the mining
and energy sectors and
carry on business in
emerging markets. He
has frequently lectured
on Mining Law and ADR.
White, J. Bradley
Osler, Hoskin
& Harcourt LLP
(613) 787-1101
bwhite@osler.com
Mr. White practises
IP law with a focus
on complex patent
litigation and pros-
ecution. He advises
clients on strategic
management of their
patent portfolios and
enforcement, including
the coordination and
management of multi-
jurisdictional litigation.
Williams, Matthew G.
Thorsteinssons LLP
(416) 864-0829
mgwilliams@thor.ca
Mr. Williams represents
taxpayers including in
civil & criminal tax litiga-
tion. He has appeared
before all court levels,
including the Supreme
Court of Canada on tax
appeals, evasion mat-
ters, CPP/EI appeals,
Charter applications
& rectification orders.
Woods, AdE,
James A.
Woods LLP
(514) 982-4503
jwoods@woods.qc.ca
Senior partner with 39
years of experience in
the fields of litigation
and arbitration. Is con-
sidered one of the best
lawyers in Québec and
Canada, and is recog-
nized as a pillar before
all federal, Québec
and Ontario provincial
tribunals, and the SCC.
were not calls for bids or tenders, they must be acquitted.
ird, Justice Warkentin turned to the wording of the
Act and the few legal cases that existed on the question of
what constituted "arrived at by agreement or arrangement."
She concluded that this required some impermissible act. In
other words, not every agreement in furtherance of deliver-
ing a bid would fall under the Act.
is was important in this case because the Crown as-
serted that agreements by the accused to secure resources, in
order to formulate their proposals, were caught by the Act
and illegal.
Fourth, Justice Warkentin found that the "made known"
defence available under the Act could be satisfied by means
other than a formal and explicit notice.
If, for example, the caller of the bids had knowledge of an
agreement between bidders, and this was known to it prior
to the submission of the bids, this could satisfy the made
known requirement.
In advance of trial, there were many preliminary decisions
including one that went to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
During trial and at the conclusion of the Crown's case, the
judge issued a directed verdict acquitting David Watts, one
of the self-represented accused.
A further preliminary decision, and of particular signifi-
cance to the trial and the jurisprudence, the trial judge struck
down s. 69(2) of the Competition Act on Charter grounds.
at section created a reverse onus provision whereby an
accused was deemed to have read and accepted the contents
of documents seized at their premises. For example, an ac-
cused would be deemed to have read and accepted the con-
tent of all emails found on their computer. Justice Warkentin
took judicial notice that in today's world, people cannot be
assumed to have read all their emails that find their way into
their inbox.
She concluded that such a provision violated constitution-
al guarantees of presumption of innocence and could not be
saved by the Oakes test.
Following the jury's verdict, the Crown decided not to
appeal and abandoned the case. It also abandoned its case
against four other accused who were awaiting a judge-alone
trial arising from the same investigation.
e accused TPG Technology Consulting Ltd. and Philip
McDonald were represented by Peter Mantas, Patrick Mc-
Cann, Tala Khoury and Alexandra Logvin of Fasken Mar-
tineau DuMoulin LLP.
e accused Ronald Walker was represented by Leslie E.
Wilbur of Leslie E. Wilbur Law Firm.
e prosecution was represented by Denis Pilon, Narissa
Somji and Valerie Chénard of the Public Prosecution Ser-
vice of Canada.
e accused in the abandoned judge-alone trial were rep-
resented as follows: Donna Cona Inc., Barry Dowdall and
David Gelineau by William Vanveen of Gowling Lafleur
Henderson LLP; and Perry Henningsen by Norman Boxall
of Bayne, Sellar, Boxall.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation
of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7
Decision date: February 13, 2015
e federal Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and
Terrorist Financing Act and associated regulations require
lawyers to record information about their clients. Federal of-
ficials are authorized to demand copies of the records and
enter premises to inspect.
